Conscience

Status
Not open for further replies.

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,140
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
This could go in Siri's thread about what we share, but I think it deserves its own discussion.

Pope Francis wrote a letter to the editor answering a series of questions. One of them was about atheists.

"Given – and this is the fundamental thing – that God's mercy has no limits, if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart," the pope wrote, "the question for those who do not believe in God is to abide by their own conscience. There is sin, also for those who have no faith, in going against one's conscience. Listening to it and abiding by it means making up one's mind about what is good and evil."

While couched in catholic language it makes an intriguing acknowledgement: that non-believers also act on and employ their consciences in decision making.

Rather than spending time here parsing Francis' words (I made a thread in P&CE for that which might not be considered a good act), I'd like to discuss the matter of shared conscience.

Most people, regardless of theological or philosophical attitude have a conscience, an internal sense of good and evil. The sense is problematic since history and present time demonstrate that it has (or is occluded by) cultural biases.

There is a tendency for people to treat sense of good and evil as if it were derived from religion or philosophy. But I think it is more accurate to say that it is shaped by those as it is shaped by culture and by personal experience.

It's also clear that conscience is not the faculty of decision making, that it suggests but cannot compel.

But the possession of such a guiding sense is shared between humans, and I think is one of the most useful elements for crossing the gaps between ways of thinking.
 

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
8,943
Reaction score
3,151
Location
In God I dwell, especially in Eugene OR
Sat Nam! (Literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

If you look at things like Greek plays, you realize that what was good behavior for a Ancient Greek is not good behavior for us. So conscience shifts with culture. But how good an individual is considered will depend on that individual's interest and ability to live to the group conscience.

That said, we can make a case that religion shapes what the cultural conscience is. I actually spoke with a lady who considers herself an atheist who was surprised I didn't consider myself a christian. Because she thought that was just a term for a good person. (This lady is nearly 90 and my husband's godmother.)

But no, I don't think you need a religion to live morally according to the lights of your own conscience.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal
 

Neegh

Banned
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
492
Reaction score
26
Sat Nam! (Literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting) I don't think you need a religion to live morally according to the lights of your own conscience.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

Good people are good people regardless of personal beliefs.



...and thank God for that! :tongue
 

Dennis E. Taylor

Get it off! It burns!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
365
Location
Beautiful downtown Mordor
Sorry, this is going to be a bit "stream of consciousness".

Brain studies have shown that you can alter a person's moral perceptions by application of a magnetic field. Studies of various types of brain damage have shown that brains are hardwired for certain types of behavior. Start with Phineas Gage and move on to almost any book by Oliver Sacks.

Studies have also shown that apes, meerkats, and any number of other pack animals display moral behavior.

Studies based on game theory show that behaviors that we consider "moral" have the effect of being more beneficial for the group than absence of that behavior, which means it would tend to be selected for.

The point of all this is that ascribing a sense of morality to the influence of religion is putting the cart before the horse. Religion doesn't set human morality, human morality defines religions. This is also illustrated by simple examination of how religions have evolved. Compare the teachings in the new testament with those in the old. Who would seriously try to sell old testament morality as "superior" ? The change came about because over time, cultures advanced and developed more advanced moralities. Religions followed that evolution, they didn't lead it. We can see that today, where religions are still trying to move into the 20th century regarding gender, sexual orientation, and general freedom issues. It is society that's telling religion to shape up.

As an aside, I get a kick out of how Christians in particular (I'm not picking on xians specifically, I just have more contact with them than any other theistic group) talk about the teachings of Jesus. The truth is that the teachings of Jesus (like the golden rule, ferex) were not original with Jesus, or even with the Jews. They come from the Greeks -- or to be more specific, the Macabees, who invaded Israel in (I think somewhere around) 130 BCE. From that time on, Judaism was undergoing a revolution in thought, and there was increasing tension between the orthodox and reformists. By the time Jesus came around, it was in full swing. He wasn't thinking this stuff up, just helping spread it.

So what is generally advertised as superior morality handed down from on high is actually derived from philosophical thought by a group of polytheistic pagans.
 

Rufus Coppertop

Banned
Flounced
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,935
Reaction score
948
Location
.
They come from the Greeks -- or to be more specific, the Macabees, who invaded Israel in (I think somewhere around) 130 BCE.
The Maccabees weren't Greek, they were Judaean and they didn't invade, they revolted. They revolted against the Seleucid Empire which was running Judea at the time and very particularly, they revolted against Hellenistic Judaism and the Hellenizing influences of certain members of the aristocracy. They won and gave rise to the Hasmonaean dynasty which subsequently gave way to the Herodian.

So what is generally advertised as superior morality handed down from on high is actually derived from philosophical thought by a group of polytheistic pagans.
People travelled and so did ideas. Alexandria was a melting pot of different religions and may easily have had Buddhists and Hindus there. Jesus of Nazareth may well have spent time in Alexandria as well as Antioch, Damascus, Memphis, or even cities much further afield.

I'm a bit suspicious about your contention though. Has anyone proven that basic ideas like treating people as you would have them treat you couldn't possibly have arisen independently among the Jews? Is there some sort of chronological survey of the golden rule based on archaeological and paleographical evidence to show that the Jews needed Greeks to come up with that one?
 
Last edited:

Neegh

Banned
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
492
Reaction score
26
So what is generally advertised as superior morality handed down from on high is actually derived from philosophical thought by a group of polytheistic pagans.

Which is why looking inward to find how we feel about a moral quandary that may confront us, usually works.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,140
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
The Golden Rule is a recurrent idea. It has been thought of in multiple places and times.

Here's a quicky incomplete list.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc3.htm
And here's another.
http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

As for The Macabees, they were anti-Hellenic. One could easily regard them as reactionary.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Maccabees.html

The Books of The Macabees are usually classed in the Apocrypha, often left out of both Christian and Hebrew Bibles, but they're well worth the reading for a view of the times and the changing religious attitudes. Here's a 19th century translation by an Anglican Archdeacon named Henry Cotton.
 
Last edited:

Neegh

Banned
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
492
Reaction score
26
And Buddhism 560 BC, From the Udanavarga 5:18- "Hurt not others with that which pains yourself."
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
The issue of what he called virtuous pagans also concerned Dante quite a lot. Yet Hades in his Commedia, when I first read it, did not really strike me as a very nice place. I recently reread it and feel the same way.
 

Dennis E. Taylor

Get it off! It burns!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
365
Location
Beautiful downtown Mordor
I'm a bit suspicious about your contention though. Has anyone proven that basic ideas like treating people as you would have them treat you couldn't possibly have arisen independently among the Jews? Is there some sort of chronological survey of the golden rule based on archaeological and paleographical evidence to show that the Jews needed Greeks to come up with that one?

Erm, no, nor do I have to. My point was only that Jesus didn't invent the ideas in Christianity that are normally thought of as "Christian values", and held out by Christians as examples of God-given morality that no non-theist could possibly believe in. Since it can be shown that these ideas existed BCE (by your own admission, as well as historical documents detailing Hellenistic philosophical arguments among others), we can therefore conclude that Jesus didn't think them up. Even if the Jews did independently think them up, which would be a hard row to hoe since they were deliberately exposed to Greek culture by Antiochus, it's still revealed as a purely human invention. Which was my point.
 

Underdawg47

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
415
Reaction score
42
Location
Federal Way Washington
Erm, no, nor do I have to. My point was only that Jesus didn't invent the ideas in Christianity that are normally thought of as "Christian values", and held out by Christians as examples of God-given morality that no non-theist could possibly believe in. Since it can be shown that these ideas existed BCE (by your own admission, as well as historical documents detailing Hellenistic philosophical arguments among others), we can therefore conclude that Jesus didn't think them up. Even if the Jews did independently think them up, which would be a hard row to hoe since they were deliberately exposed to Greek culture by Antiochus, it's still revealed as a purely human invention. Which was my point.

I think that what we think of as morality comes from being social animals. We survived better by acting as a group to hunt, to defend against predators and to raise our young. We had to do certain things in order to cooperate with each other. It was beneficial for our species to live in harmony with our family and friends. The golden rule is just the basic principle of getting along with your neighbors.
 

Rufus Coppertop

Banned
Flounced
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,935
Reaction score
948
Location
.
My point was only that Jesus didn't invent the ideas in Christianity that are normally thought of as "Christian values", and held out by Christians as examples of God-given morality that no non-theist could possibly believe in.
On that, we definitely agree.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
Most people, regardless of theological or philosophical attitude have a conscience, an internal sense of good and evil. The sense is problematic since history and present time demonstrate that it has (or is occluded by) cultural biases.

I'm not really comfortable with "sense of good and evil" as a definition for conscience.

1. Good and evil: This is maybe a minor point, but I'd prefer "right and wrong" for two reasons:

(a) "Good and evil" tends to be used for agents as well as for actions. There's a good deed, a good person, an evil deed, an evil person. "Right and Wrong" only applies to actions really.

(b) I feel that with "right and wrong" it's easier to talk about context. "Good and evil" feel, to me, like they are biased towards higher-level abstractions. It makes sense to say that wrong in one situation is right in another. I have trouble saying that what's evil in one situation is good in another. I just feel that "right and wrong" is more of a micro-term pair than "good evil", closer to the level on which conscience operates.

2. I don't think your conscience is your "sense of right and wrong," either. Rather, I think your conscience is part of that. Specifically, I think that the conscience is the part of yourself that corrects you if you consider doing something that's "wrong".

I don't think your conscience is directly involved in the other side of the coin: when you judge the actions of other people. I think that's a different mental process.

And I think that you need to integrate your conscience with that other sense (justice?) to arrive at your fully grown sense of "right and wrong". At least in our culture, we try to synchronise the two elements (and we usually have a sense of hypocrisy in our conscience if we ask more of others than we ask of ourselves; asking more yourself than of others is not similarly stigmatised thus we have no clear word for that - or can you think of one? Maybe I'm missing something obvious here.)

Note that the above distinction between conscience and sense of justice is problematic. I do think that conscience only applies to your own actions (and thoughts), but your own actions and thoughts often react ot other people's actions, and as such they imply something about those actions, too. Take the action of "scolding"; if you can scold someone without interference from your conscience, than that has moral implications. It's an analytical separation, but I think it's one that makes psychological sense.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,140
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I'm not really comfortable with "sense of good and evil" as a definition for conscience.

1. Good and evil: This is maybe a minor point, but I'd prefer "right and wrong" for two reasons:

(a) "Good and evil" tends to be used for agents as well as for actions. There's a good deed, a good person, an evil deed, an evil person. "Right and Wrong" only applies to actions really.

(b) I feel that with "right and wrong" it's easier to talk about context. "Good and evil" feel, to me, like they are biased towards higher-level abstractions. It makes sense to say that wrong in one situation is right in another. I have trouble saying that what's evil in one situation is good in another. I just feel that "right and wrong" is more of a micro-term pair than "good evil", closer to the level on which conscience operates.

2. I don't think your conscience is your "sense of right and wrong," either. Rather, I think your conscience is part of that. Specifically, I think that the conscience is the part of yourself that corrects you if you consider doing something that's "wrong".

I don't think your conscience is directly involved in the other side of the coin: when you judge the actions of other people. I think that's a different mental process.

And I think that you need to integrate your conscience with that other sense (justice?) to arrive at your fully grown sense of "right and wrong". At least in our culture, we try to synchronise the two elements (and we usually have a sense of hypocrisy in our conscience if we ask more of others than we ask of ourselves; asking more yourself than of others is not similarly stigmatised thus we have no clear word for that - or can you think of one? Maybe I'm missing something obvious here.)

Note that the above distinction between conscience and sense of justice is problematic. I do think that conscience only applies to your own actions (and thoughts), but your own actions and thoughts often react ot other people's actions, and as such they imply something about those actions, too. Take the action of "scolding"; if you can scold someone without interference from your conscience, than that has moral implications. It's an analytical separation, but I think it's one that makes psychological sense.

Thoughts?

You're raising a number of interesting issues. I have to say that my thinking on the subject has mutated since I started the thread more than a year ago.

I think the distinctions you are making between conscience and sense of justice are important.

I have lately begun to mistrust the idea of Justice, because it is so often done in second or third person, where conscience works in first.

I've also become cautious about the sense of right and wrong because they so often blend moral sense with person aesthetics. A lot of people will declare that something that squicks them out must be morally wrong.

I am coming to suspect that a conscience is something like a moral skill, a sense that must be honed by thought and care. Most people would start with an untrained sense of moral action, but not everyone, and to really develop one would require time and effort and focus on the difficulties in peoples' lives.

It also seems to me that if people don't practice their consciences with care they will end up with moral senses that reflect their societies and/or personal tastes.
 

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
8,943
Reaction score
3,151
Location
In God I dwell, especially in Eugene OR
Sat Nam! (Literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

I like the idea of conscience being "moral skill." Like all skills, I think it needs practice to make perfect...and can be developed.

And yeah, Justice is in 3rd p and conscience is in 1st. I like that phrasing too.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
You're raising a number of interesting issues. I have to say that my thinking on the subject has mutated since I started the thread more than a year ago.

I didn't realise that this was an old thread. I especially didn't realise that Pope Francis has been in office for nearly two years, already. My sense of time is totally off...

I have lately begun to mistrust the idea of Justice, because it is so often done in second or third person, where conscience works in first.

I've also become cautious about the sense of right and wrong because they so often blend moral sense with person aesthetics. A lot of people will declare that something that squicks them out must be morally wrong.
I've got stories I've written between age 12 - 14, where I spout clichés like, "There's no justice." If I'd replied to the thread when it was new, I probably wouldn't have even used the word, even though I'd have made the same distinction. (I say "probably", because you never know.)

As for "right and wrong", I deleted an early version of those post that had a lot more content, but was too convoluted for me to get a handle on. Part of the deleted content involved me taking issue with "an internal sense of", because I think that "right and wrong" is always internal; there's nothing outside yourself that it could be a sense of. I deleted it because the issues involved here are incredibly complex, and I feared a detour. It's a bit like language. The meaning of a word only ever exists (in physical form) in brains; but at the same time the meaning isn't strictly personal. I've instinctively been drawn towards constructivism and phenomenology, which adress this in detail.

I am coming to suspect that a conscience is something like a moral skill, a sense that must be honed by thought and care. Most people would start with an untrained sense of moral action, but not everyone, and to really develop one would require time and effort and focus on the difficulties in peoples' lives.
I can't really think of conscience as a skill, although there are certainly lots of conscience related skills. I think your conscience is part of your personality: it's not something you do, it's something you are. In other words: your conscience is part of what gives your moral decisions meaning.

Here's the kicker for me: why do you think a conscience is a good thing? Why do you think you should develop and work at your conscience? Isn't that, too, an expression of your conscience? I personally feel you can't judge your own conscience properly without getting lost in infinite regress.

So I'm not sure how to read this:

It also seems to me that if people don't practice their consciences with care they will end up with moral senses that reflect their societies and/or personal tastes.
I've said before that I'm a social relativist. I'm also a constructivist (as I implied while talking about "right/wrong"). This is why I think that your moral sense reflecting your societies and/or personal taste is inevitable.

But that also means that "your society" isn't strictly external; something that opposes you. It's the framework you operate in. And I think that personal taste is a crucial component of your morals; in particular when it comes to your "motivation to be good".

Basically, I think that my conscience is an internalised realisation that I'm not alone, and developing it involves a tension field of social sanctions and empathy. I don't like to be punished, but similarly I also don't like seeing people sad. That is taste, in the sense that it's selective (some punishments are worse than others; some people's sadness touches me more than others').

I distinguished between conscience and sense of justice, but I think it's actually even more complex:

* self---action--->other
* self<---action---other
* other<---interaction--->other
* self-as-other<---interaction--->other

I have a very narrow view of conscience: in my above post (and in this one really, too) I've only really considered the first of those "conscience". But it's probably worthwhile to consider the last of those part of your conscience, too. In that sense, "seeing yourself as other" is indeed a skill, and it would be a skill that's necessary to maintain a working conscience, maybe.

I hope I'm not too confusing, here. You've given me a new perspective, and I'm not yet quite sure how to deal with it, so I may not be completely coherent yet. Interesting thread. Thanks.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,140
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
As for "right and wrong", I deleted an early version of those post that had a lot more content, but was too convoluted for me to get a handle on. Part of the deleted content involved me taking issue with "an internal sense of", because I think that "right and wrong" is always internal; there's nothing outside yourself that it could be a sense of. I deleted it because the issues involved here are incredibly complex, and I feared a detour. It's a bit like language. The meaning of a word only ever exists (in physical form) in brains; but at the same time the meaning isn't strictly personal. I've instinctively been drawn towards constructivism and phenomenology, which adress this in detail.

I used 'internal' sense because without using the word internal, I might have created the false impression. It's quite possible to have the view that right and wrong or good and evil are actual real world things that one has an actual external perception for. Various ideas of witch hunting have involved such a sense.

I can't really think of conscience as a skill, although there are certainly lots of conscience related skills. I think your conscience is part of your personality: it's not something you do, it's something you are. In other words: your conscience is part of what gives your moral decisions meaning.

Here's the kicker for me: why do you think a conscience is a good thing? Why do you think you should develop and work at your conscience? Isn't that, too, an expression of your conscience? I personally feel you can't judge your own conscience properly without getting lost in infinite regress.

Many skills are practiced out of basic abilities (e.g. learning to run from our ability to walk or an artist's eye developed from our ability to see). So the existence of a conscience that is part of what we are does not negate the idea of trained conscience that comes from that fundament by practice and teaching.

I think that one should develop and work on it, because any exercise of mind should be mindful. I think that relying on a raw judgment of right and wrong is risky. It's also easy to see that if people don't examine their ideas of right and wrong, they are likely to take up their culture's prejudices admixed with their personal tastes.



I've said before that I'm a social relativist. I'm also a constructivist (as I implied while talking about "right/wrong"). This is why I think that your moral sense reflecting your societies and/or personal taste is inevitable.

But that also means that "your society" isn't strictly external; something that opposes you. It's the framework you operate in. And I think that personal taste is a crucial component of your morals; in particular when it comes to your "motivation to be good".

Basically, I think that my conscience is an internalised realisation that I'm not alone, and developing it involves a tension field of social sanctions and empathy. I don't like to be punished, but similarly I also don't like seeing people sad. That is taste, in the sense that it's selective (some punishments are worse than others; some people's sadness touches me more than others').

I distinguished between conscience and sense of justice, but I think it's actually even more complex:

* self---action--->other
* self<---action---other
* other<---interaction--->other
* self-as-other<---interaction--->other

I have a very narrow view of conscience: in my above post (and in this one really, too) I've only really considered the first of those "conscience". But it's probably worthwhile to consider the last of those part of your conscience, too. In that sense, "seeing yourself as other" is indeed a skill, and it would be a skill that's necessary to maintain a working conscience, maybe.

I hope I'm not too confusing, here. You've given me a new perspective, and I'm not yet quite sure how to deal with it, so I may not be completely coherent yet. Interesting thread. Thanks.

Not too confusing at all. As to the question of relativism. I don't think that there is an absolute good / evil or right and wrong. I do think that there are certain basic human needs that any practical human and human society need to deal with and that those needs are often phrased in terms of worthy actions:
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Shelter the homeless.
Heal the sick.
Etc.

I call the tendency of mind toward fulfilling of these needs Compassion and I regard it as fundamental to humanity. How a person or society does these actions is relative. But those relative views are relative to facts. You cannot define rocks (apart from salt) as food and say that giving people rocks is feeding the hungry. The facts of human biochemistry are against this.

This leads to my other fundamental principle: debugging (I'm a programmer in my day job). We have various methods for doing things. They are not all equal in efficacy or efficiency. I regard trying to improve those methods and/or find better ones as vital to humanity. Making new and better means of feeding the hungry, etc, is part of what I deem working on the skill of conscience.

Part of that debugging is mistrust of whatever procedures people are complacent about. Something may work, or it may seem to work if one discounts inherent problems (e.g. buying food as a means of feeding the hungry works, but only if you have money and a source of money).

So compassion and mistrust are the watchwords of my conscience.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
The point of all this is that ascribing a sense of morality to the influence of religion is putting the cart before the horse. Religion doesn't set human morality, human morality defines religions. This is also illustrated by simple examination of how religions have evolved. Compare the teachings in the new testament with those in the old. Who would seriously try to sell old testament morality as "superior" ?

I'm not so sure that juxtaposing religion and morality is all that enlightening, especially when considering some version of the Hebrew canon versus some version of the post-second temple canon. For example, in the large segment of religious writing that doesn't make it into either canon (eg. commentaries such as are found in the Qumran scrolls, or the Books of Enoch and the Clementine Recognitions and so on) we can see that the texts of the Hebrew canon were used to open a very large discursive space where there were many different models for regulating behavior. Similarly, while the New Testament canon seems to offer some kind of behavioral regulation, it is really a commentary on all those omitted commentaries and an ongoing effort to define a "new religion" that turns out (pretty quickly -- in another set of non-canonical texts) to be very indefinite in every way.
So what is following what there? Does the indefinite status of the newness of all the possible Christianities reflect a shift in the range of possible discursive spaces or does it reflect something in the social world? Probably both, but I doubt that social change could be anywhere near as extreme as all the possible versions of Christianity.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
I used 'internal' sense because without using the word internal, I might have created the false impression. It's quite possible to have the view that right and wrong or good and evil are actual real world things that one has an actual external perception for. Various ideas of witch hunting have involved such a sense.

Things make sense now. I stumbled over the expression "external perception", as I intuitively read "external" as the location of the act of perceiving. I interpreted "internal sense" similarly, but that should have made me think of it as a tautology; and I must have also interpreted at least a little as "sense of something internal", since that went into my reply. Basically, I think I had a knot of confusion. Clarified now. Thanks.

Many skills are practiced out of basic abilities (e.g. learning to run from our ability to walk or an artist's eye developed from our ability to see). So the existence of a conscience that is part of what we are does not negate the idea of trained conscience that comes from that fundament by practice and teaching.

I do think I understand that. I mentioned "conscience-related skills" for a reason.

I imagine a person without a conscience: what sort of skill would such a person lack? I can't come up with anything. The difference I see is in the person's motivational structure, not in his skill set.

Example: The skill to see things from different perspectives is important to a working conscience, but you can develop that skill without a conscience.

I can come up with similar skills that are important to a conscience, and that in turn make the conscience work "better". But I can't come up with a skill that requires a conscience. It's entirely possible that I'm missing something important here.

I think that one should develop and work on it, because any exercise of mind should be mindful. I think that relying on a raw judgment of right and wrong is risky. It's also easy to see that if people don't examine their ideas of right and wrong, they are likely to take up their culture's prejudices admixed with their personal tastes.

"Risky" in what sense? What are you risking? And why is it important? Or in other words: isn't it your conscience that tells you that you should work on your conscience? What if it didn't? (Once again: simplification alert. I don't think anyone's moral sense is entirely determined by one's conscience. But I do think that's where moral motivation comes from.)

Not too confusing at all. As to the question of relativism. I don't think that there is an absolute good / evil or right and wrong. I do think that there are certain basic human needs that any practical human and human society need to deal with and that those needs are often phrased in terms of worthy actions:
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Shelter the homeless.
Heal the sick.
Etc.

I call the tendency of mind toward fulfilling of these needs Compassion and I regard it as fundamental to humanity. How a person or society does these actions is relative. But those relative views are relative to facts. You cannot define rocks (apart from salt) as food and say that giving people rocks is feeding the hungry. The facts of human biochemistry are against this.

I'm open to human universals, but I have trouble with "humanity" as a concept that goes beyond biology. So I'm not entirely sure what to make of "compassion being fundamental to humanity". I'd be fine with a simple statement like this: "At any given time, most humans alive will feel compassion to one degree or another."

Here's a question, though: Do you think feeling compassion is fundamental to having a conscience?

I'm asking, because I'm currently re-examining something I said above: that I see a conscience as something you develop during childhood. I included social sanctions. So, for example:

* Don't do this or Mummy will be sad. --> Conscience
* Don't do this or Mummy will be angry. --> Conscience
* Don't do this or Mummy will punish you. --> ?Conscience?

So what's the relationship here? What do we internalise when we internalise punishment? Negative consequences? Distribution of responsibility?

(And as a side note: what would change if we replace "Mummy" with a spiritual authority of choice (such as God)?)

This leads to my other fundamental principle: debugging (I'm a programmer in my day job). We have various methods for doing things. They are not all equal in efficacy or efficiency. I regard trying to improve those methods and/or find better ones as vital to humanity. Making new and better means of feeding the hungry, etc, is part of what I deem working on the skill of conscience.

Part of that debugging is mistrust of whatever procedures people are complacent about. Something may work, or it may seem to work if one discounts inherent problems (e.g. buying food as a means of feeding the hungry works, but only if you have money and a source of money).

Your concept of "conscience" seems to operate on a much larger scale than mine. I've highlighted the sentence that I'll have to think about the most in here.

For me, "conscience" is really just that feeling of moral discomfort (or more rarely comfort) that I get when doing something. Making something more efficient has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Mistrust does, in the sense that you shouldn't assume your conscience is reliable. Sometimes watching bad things happen is hard. Your consceince may tell you to intervene. But it might be better, in the long run, to stay out of it.

For me, conscience is completely irrational; but it's also limited in scope. At this point, I'm not quite sure where or how much we differ, but I do think there's a difference somewhere in our concepts.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Meh.

It's common to morally judge others based on their actions.

Conscience is simply one's moral judgement of oneself.

I don't think it's a particularly helpful concept since one's moral judgment of oneself will depend entirely one's self-perception.

Narcissists or megalomaniacs may have an entirely clear conscience despite morally-corrupt actions because of their elevated self-perception, while innocent persons with low self-assessments may judge themselves more harshly than they would others.

I think an example of this would be survivor's guilt, wherein a person essentially develops a guilty conscience for having done the "wrong" of surviving a traumatic event that others they deem equally or more worthy did not.

I don't think a conscience is necessary at all for moral action. In fact, it can sometimes be a hindrance.
 
Last edited:

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
I am coming to suspect that a conscience is something like a moral skill, a sense that must be honed by thought and care. Most people would start with an untrained sense of moral action, but not everyone, and to really develop one would require time and effort and focus on the difficulties in peoples' lives.

Yes, this exactly. Conscience is active, requiring practice.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,140
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I don't think of the action of conscience as the same as the feeling of right or wrong. Feelings are fleeting and can be changed arbitrarily. I think of conscience as a more expanded sense of the fit of actions into the person's morality.

So rather than a sharp judgement, conscience puts the world and a person's actions into a moral context.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
Meh.

It's common to morally judge others based on their actions.

Conscience is simply one's moral judgement of oneself.

I don't think it's a particularly helpful concept since one's moral judgment of oneself will depend entirely one's self-perception.

Narcissists or megalomaniacs may have an entirely clear conscience despite morally-corrupt actions because of their elevated self-perception, while innocent persons with low self-assessments may judge themselves more harshly than they would others.

I think an example of this would be survivor's guilt, wherein a person essentially develops a guilty conscience for having done the "wrong" of surviving a traumatic event that others they deem equally or more worthy did not.

I don't think a conscience is necessary at all for moral action. In fact, it can sometimes be a hindrance.

I agree. Or even more reductively: Conscience is guilt waiting to happen. Or in Freudian terms, the negative self-reinforcement side of the superego backed up (as it usually is) by societal norms of various kinds. Survivor guilt is kind of like all of that running off the rails into the stratosphere.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Yes, this exactly. Conscience is active, requiring practice.

I don't think of the action of conscience as the same as the feeling of right or wrong. Feelings are fleeting and can be changed arbitrarily. I think of conscience as a more expanded sense of the fit of actions into the person's morality.

So rather than a sharp judgement, conscience puts the world and a person's actions into a moral context.

I would say conscience is simply one narrow facet of the broader skill of reflection and self-evaluation in general.

So trying to practice or develop a conscience is largely pointless. Better to learn the general skill of objective self-assessment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.